There Will Be Another Mass Shooting? Well thats the buzz anyway.

In the first quote you did from me it should have stated then, and not them. Slip of the finger, but that wasn't the point you're making. Let me say
this:

the second paragraph doesn't look the same as when I first read the article (it may be just me remembering wrong, but it does look different then
when the article was first published)next time I'll copy the whole sub-text then I can say for certain about that.

While the second paragraph does say that :

Every assertion in the first paragraph is a function of probability, not fact. The next mass shooting — which will happen somewhere, sometime
— will almost certainly not be in that place at that time.

I will say that the "will almost certainly not be in that place at that time" line seems more then a little off. If they are saying that it can
happen anywhere, then go to show how they came up with their prediction, then how can they make that statement?

I should have been a little more careful when making this thread, so that any and all data could be examined. That is my fault, and I'm sorry.

I will say that this report does seem to be showing an agenda (and I don't think it's the one they talk about in the following days report. If it
was wouldn't they have posted it at the end of the article?)

This report needs to be followed and deconstructed piece by piece. A major event is for told, a reason is presented, and the next day it's all
retracted. That's disinformation!

I know. I thought about correcting it for you because it was pretty clear that it was a typo (m is next to n) but am loathe to edit other people's
words in a quote even if it's in the pure intent of correcting a spelling error or typo.

There's a distinct possibility that they added the second paragraph after the fact. They could've assumed that most people would know that what the
information that they were providing was based on probabilities and probabilities aren't factual and have some level of uncertainty. As someone who
aced stats, I think the highest you can go with a confidence level is 99% probable but that takes extremely correlated variables and still has a 1%
probability of error. The more precise a claim is in multiple factors, the less likely the outcome will be as predicted. It's the difference
between saying "I have a confidence level of 99% that there is likely to be a shooting by the end of the year" (phrasing would include all shootings
and not just mass) and "I have a confidence level of 95% that it is likely that there will be another attempt at a mass shooting by the end of
the year." (more specific in type, includes degree of uncertainty, and all types of potential mass shootings including ones that work and ones that
get thwarted). Making a statement like "There is likely to be another mass shooting that results in 5 or more fatalities by the end of the year."
by my estimation at least, would have a high degree of uncertainty. It'd be closer to maybe 60% by my mental reckoning--a little more likely that it
would happen but also almost just as likely that it wouldn't. Complex stuff, right? Well, they may have forgotten that not everybody gets that a
probability doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to happen absolutely.

However, I think it was there but not 100% (90% confidence on that lol) and the Atlantic Wire is generally pretty good at making their changes to an
existing article at the bottom. It's one of the things I like about them. Did they have an agenda? Absolutely. Most op-eds are written with an
agenda in mind. If they didn't have one, then they wouldn't be writing it. I guess what's important is whether or not the agenda that the author
had was good or bad and that's subjective. They did put the update referencing the part 2 at the bottom of the original article the next day.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.